masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:SpartHawg948
User:SpartHawg948/archive1 User:SpartHawg948/archive2 User:SpartHawg948/archive3 Quck Note Just archived all the prior content. If you need to leave a comment related to something that is now archived, I'd appreciate it if you do so here, as opposed to in the archive. With that having been said, I do understand that there are situations where it would be easier/more convenient to continue on a pre-existing thread that is now in the archive, and if that is the case, then I'll understand. My asking that things be put here whenever possible isn't a demand or an order, just a humble request. Thank you much, people! :) SpartHawg948 11:02, June 5, 2010 (UTC) Collector Cruiser On the discussion page of the Collector Cruiser you claim that there is nothing to suggest that there was only one cruiser, I must contend that this is false. First, the same ship is encountered three times in a row by Shepard and company, as Shepard himself says "more than just coincidence." Second, the cruiser contained millions, possibly tens of millions of pods, enough to supply all the Humans needed to build the Human-reaper; methodical and efficient as they are, why would the reapers waste resources building several such ships when one is more than sufficient. One could argue that having several ships is more efficient; but if the reapers had used this logic, they would have made each vessel much smaller, frigate sized maybe or genuinely cruiser sized, but the Collector "cruiser" is the size of a small dreadnought for Christsake, and the label 'cruiser' is only used twice, both times tentatively and both times at the very beginning of the game, thereafter it is known simply as a 'ship'. But back to the number of Collector vessels; the average human colony has a population of less than a thousand. The reapers would know this from monitoring of the extranet (pop. statistics are hardly classified information) and would have two strategies to choose from: send many small Collector ships to attack one colony each and return to base every time; or send one enormous vessel to gather as many as it can find in one sweep and then return to base. The advantage of the second strategy is that fewer round trips are required per sweep as well as fewer ships; a larger ship can defend itself more easily if discovered and will commit fewer attacks in one go. The advantage to this leads me to my third point, discretion. With many vessels commiting multiple attacks, there would be a noticeable increase in the number of colony attacks and something that the galactic powers would have to take note of; one ship can commit attacks and the disparity of such incidences would pass unnoticed through the statistics. One could argue that several ships makes the job of creating a human-reaper faster, but having been around for millions of years the reapers aren't exactly pressed for time. Also, this vessel(s) would have been around for thousands of years since the collectors were making clandestine deals with the galaxy for centuries before Mass Effect 1; given their exotic and lofty prices, they could hardly need a dozen ships to carry out these transactions. My point is, the controversy of how many ships there were should be noted in the article itself, so far it rather ignorantly assumes that there were many ships, assumptions are worse than speculation but any attempt to add such speculation is always removed. It should at least be mentioned. :Well, let's take a looksee, shall we? The same ship was encountered three times in a row. This is true. That does not mean it's the only Collector Cruiser. It could just be that this particular cruiser was the one assigned to take down Shepard. That seems plausible, doesn't it? Sure does! Next, it contained millions of pods, enough to supply enough humans to build the Human-Reaper. Yes, it did. Eventually. But does it contain enough to deliver the number of humans required all at once? We don't know. Assuming that it did is speculation, as is assuming that the one ship would suffice for the Reapers goals. As to your 'efficiency' argument, it would hardly be efficient to use small, frigate sized vessels to attack colony worlds with the purpose of abducting colonists. As you yourself later point out, such a ship needs to defend itself. Small, frigate sized vessels would stand no chance against the defenses of, say, Earth. Which brings me to another point: How would this one Collector cruiser have taken on Earth, which was, per dialogue, the intended eventual target? The Cruiser couldn't stand up to one heavy frigate! How would it have fared against the Alliance fleet (which likely would have been using dreadnoughts to defend Earth, and likely would have had Citadel reinforcements standing by)? Pretty poorly! You offer a false dilemma with your scenario: It has to be either many small ships making many trips, or one large ship making few trips. It could be mulitple large ships, a combination of large and small ships, and so on and so forth. It's much more complex than the simplistic way you phrase it. You also claim that with more than one large ship attacking colonies, great powers would have taken note. Well, they did! The Alliance took note. Remember Horizon? Where the Alliance sent someone to check out the disappearances? This in addition to Cerberus and a multitude of smaller groups and individuals taking note. Again, it just doesn't make sense to only have one of these ships, especially in light of the fact that they appear to have intended to take on tougher nuts (such as Earth) in the near future, and one cruiser wouldn't suffice for that. Again, there is no evidence in-game that this is the only cruiser, and all you've offered here has been speculation. SpartHawg948 20:37, June 5, 2010 (UTC) ::(edit conflict)Now to this. First we don't know how many ships the Collectors have. We don't know that the same cruiser ecountered by Shepard at the Collector Base is the same as the one that was encoutered the previous times. We don't know and the contriversy, as you put it, is because we dont know. You seem to want to impose your will on the article by saying there is just one, but we don't know so we say that is there currently. Second the mention of millions of pods is pure speculaiton, we don't know, and suggesting a number is speculation. Also in the beginning of the game, the ensign says looks like a cruiser, so we take that as it is about the size of a cruiser. Visual comparisons are not enough to make out the size of something, which is why we don't allow it. THe ensign says cruiser, so we say cruiser. The average human colony having a population of under a thousand, wow where did that come from. Horizon has a population of 654,930, Therum 34,000, Terra Nova 4.4 million, ande Bekenstein 5,425,000. While we don't know the rest of the populations, we can assume that 1,000 for the whole colony is a extrememly underestimated number. You have offered nothing but speculation, which doesn't back up anything you said. Lancer1289 20:46, June 5, 2010 (UTC) It doesn't seem that either of you read a word I said, my desire is NOT to 'impose my will' on this or any other article, my ultimate desire was to have it noted down that it isn't at all clear if more than one vessel existed, its possible but NOT certain as the article implies. I was hoping for some intelligent discourse on the issue but sadly my hopes were misplaced, instead all I get are two hysterical backlashes from two self-righteous pinheads. Please accept my profound apologies if that violates your precious guidelines on insulting other users, but I feel insulted by the patronising and willful hypocrisy of your responses. It is YOU who seek to impose YOUR wills and your stunted 2 dimensional views onto everyone else. Since you have chosen to reply, not with intelligent counter-arguments, but instead by selectively twisting and ignoring my arguments, I'm not going to waste my time pointing out everything that is wrong with your "replies". I can say all this with all due respect, because no respect is actually due, this is turn is because no respect is offered in the first place. :Seriously guy? Seriously? When did I ever state that you were seeking to impose your will on the article? I never did! I stuck to your points, treated them with the full weight and respect they deserved, and answered them. And what do I get in return? I get called a self-righteous pinhead. Real classy, pal. I was doing my best to contribute to the intelligent discourse, but it seems that when confronted with facts, your favored tactic is to launch ad hominem attacks, state that you aren't going to waste your time pointing out what is wrong with my response (a sure sign that you can't find fault with them), and to storm off in a tizzy. If that's how you operate, do it somewhere other than my talk page. If you'd like to have the intelligent discourse you claim to seek, I suggest you actually try responding to the counterpoints presented to your argument, rather than resorting to childish name calling. This isn't the third grade, pal. SpartHawg948 21:24, June 5, 2010 (UTC) *Ok, since apparently no response will be forthcoming, let's take a closer look at this. This is not to be mean, but because I'm not a fan of (among other things) being called a self-righteous pinhead, a hypocrite, patronizing, incapable of intelligent discourse, being told that my factual and on-topic reply is a hysterical backlash, and that rather than replying with intelligent counter-arguments, I have to ignore or selectively twist arguments. So let's break down my response, compare it to the original, and see if it really is a hysterical backlash that relies not on intelligent counter-argument, but instead on distorting and ignoring other users comments. I don't want to omit anything, so I'll begin with the opening irrelevances/niceties: Pretty self-explanatory, that. Next, we see my response to the following argument presented by the anonymous user (referred to subsequently as A for anon, and I'll refer to myself as M for me). A: M: Maybe a little irreverent/flippant on my part, which I suppose could be misconstrued as me being patronizing or condescending, though this was not the intent at all. I next respond to the following- A: M: As you can see, my counter-argument directly addressed the issue, and pointed out that we don't have enough information here to draw any conclusions. Moving on. A: This one was rather lengthy, as was my response. M: Here, I do the following: To counter the efficiency argument, I point out that having multiple large ships makes sense from an efficiency standpoint. Further, we are left to conclude based on dialogue that the Collectors intended to target Earth. If this is in fact the case, it would be sheer madness to attempt to do so with one cruiser described by A as being "the size of a small dreadnought" when the defenses of Earth would most certianly consist of elements of the Alliance Navy to include cruisers and likely carriers and dreadnoughts. One cruiser which couldn't even withstand an attack by a heavy frigate (an advanced frigate, but a frigate nonetheless) couldn't dream of taking on Earth. Next, A makes the following point: To this I reply: Again, maybe a little irreverent, which again could be construed as something other than how I intended it, but the point remains. The discretion argument just doesn't fly. After all, the argument presented to oppose multiple cruisers is that the galactic powers would have taken note of the attacks. And as I pointed out, that is exactly what happened! After all, the Systems Alliance is a galactic power, one of the four Council Races. Next, A makes the following point, which I do appear to have failed to respond to, for which I apologize. A: So let me respond now. We have no idea how "exotic" or lofty the prices of these ships are. Assuming that they are so prohibitively expensive as to preclude the possibility of the Collectors possessing more than one is speculation. It also just doesn't fly to compare prior small-scale deals, with totals of beings numbering in the dozens at most, to the large-scale harvesting carried out by the Collectors in ME2. It just doesn't add up. I conclude by summing up my argument: And there you have it. As you can see, no hypocrisy, no distorting or twisting of A's words (although I do admit that it appears I did overlook one point), and certianly nothing other than intelligent counter-argument (with a dash of my usual irreverence), but nothing along the lines of a 'hysterical backlash'. And with that, I'll close out this rather lengthy post. I did find this topic interesting, and do hope that the anonymous user who started this thread will return to discuss it further. We'll just have to wait and see if that happens, I suppose. SpartHawg948 22:45, June 5, 2010 (UTC) MischiefMaker Spart, yet another vandel. User:MischiefMaker. Lancer1289 21:22, June 5, 2010 (UTC) :And so aptly named too. --The Illusive Man 21:25, June 5, 2010 (UTC) ::Indeed. Lancer1289 21:26, June 5, 2010 (UTC) Article Validity Spart, for the life of me I can't figure out this new article, The Hidden Machine. I can't remember a reference anywhere in the books, comics, or the games. If I am wrong, then please correct me, but I can't remember anything. The article seems to be a spam article because it has so much speculation, I can't even figure out what is truth. Lancer1289 06:03, June 6, 2010 (UTC) :Also be sure to check out my battle of the week. I felt it was appropiate for the date. Lancer1289 06:10, June 6, 2010 (UTC) :I was guessing that the article is about the light inside that claw in the first game, but still, it has nothing to back it up. MEffect Fan 06:13, June 6, 2010 (UTC) ::I think that the user is just using it as a crutch to make the aritlce seem valid. But that's just me. Lancer1289 06:16, June 6, 2010 (UTC) ::Well, I don't know man, we are not admins so we cannot delete it. MEffect Fan 06:20, June 6, 2010 (UTC) Spart can you also check the Rogue VI page as well. This article falls under the heading of "can be covered elsewhere". There isn't enough justification to warrent its own article when it again can be covered elsewhere. Lancer1289 07:03, June 6, 2010 (UTC) 71.46.49.251 Second vandel today Spart. Please get rid of him. Thanks. He just vandalized MEffect Fan's user page so I thought I'd tell you about that. Lancer1289 06:22, June 6, 2010 (UTC) :It seems like MEffect Fan has become his favorite target now. Lancer1289 06:29, June 6, 2010 (UTC) Recreation of a article Spart, User:FoxtrotZero just recreated the Kowloon Class article, to fix a broken link. This article was moved because of a misspelling and then you, or DRY, have to check the log, deleted it. Last time I checked, there are almost 200 broken links, and is it necessary to fix them all, as most are just one or two links? Can you please redelete the page. Also as it is 2:30am here, I really need to go to bed. I apologize if I over stepped my bounds here, or came across as a little accusitory. Lancer1289 07:29, June 6, 2010 (UTC)